YOU ARE NOW CONNECTED TO THE TOXLINE65 (1965 - 80, NON-ROYALTY) FILE.

                        ==DEODORANT ALLERGY==

2
AUTHOR                    van Ketel WG
TITLE                     Allergic contact dermatitis from propellants
                          in deodorant sprays in combination with
                          allergy to ethyl chloride.
SOURCE                    Contact Dermatitis; VOL 2, ISS 2, 1976,
                          P115-9
ABSTRACT                  Allergic contact eczema from the use of
                          deodorant sprays is sometimes caused by
                          sensitization to the propellants. Positive
                          reactions were seen in three patients when
                          patch testing to Freon 11
                          (trichloromonofluoromethane). One patient
                          also reacted to Freon 12
                          (dichlorofluoromethane). Another patient had
                          an eczematous eruption after ethyl chloride
                          was sprayed on the skin prior to taking
                          biopsy. The two other patients showed
                          strongly positive patch tests with this
                          compound. Further investigations of the
                          sensitizing capacity propellants with
                          chemical resemblance have to be carried out
                          to solve the problem of cross-sensitization.


YOU ARE NOW CONNECTED TO THE TOXLINE (1981 FORWARD, NON-ROYALTY) FILE.

2
AUTHOR                    Handley J
AUTHOR                    Burrows D
TITLE                     Allergic contact dermatitis from the
                          synthetic fragrances Lyral and acetyl cedrene
                          in separate underarm deodorant preparations.
SOURCE                    Contact Dermatitis; VOL 31, ISS 5, 1994,
                          P288-90
ABSTRACT                  The case is reported of a 28-year-old man who
                          developed allergic contact dermatitis from 2
                          synthetic fragrance ingredients, Lyral (3-
                          and
                          4-(4-hydroxy-4-methylpentyl)-3-cyclohexene-1--
                          aldehyde) and acetyl cedrene, in separate
                          underarm deodorant preparations. The
                          implications of the patient's negative patch
                          test reactions to the European standard
                          series (Trolab) and cosmetics and fragrance
                          series (both Chemotechnique Diagnostics) are
                          discussed. The importance is stressed of
                          patch testing with the patient's own
                          preparations when cosmetic dermatitis is
                          suspected, and of identifying and reporting
                          offending fragrance ingredients, with a view
                          possibly to updating the European standard
                          series and commercially available cosmetics
                          and fragrance series.

3
AUTHOR                    Kraus AL
AUTHOR                    Stotts J
AUTHOR                    Altringer LA
AUTHOR                    Allgood GS
TITLE                     Allergic contact dermatitis from propyl
                          gallate: dose response comparison using
                          various application methods.
SOURCE                    Contact Dermatitis; VOL 22, ISS 3, 1990,
                          P132-6
ABSTRACT                  The antioxidant propyl gallate, in a
                          deodorant product, caused an allergic contact
                          dermatitis in 1 subject during developmental
                          controlled use testing. Subsequent dose
                          response elicitation studies with this
                          subject revealed a differing threshold of
                          sensitivity to propyl gallate dependent upon
                          application method. Increasing the level of
                          occlusion increased the elicitation response.
                          Responsiveness from greatest to least was:
                          occluded patch on the upper arm greater than
                          semi-occluded axilla greater than open
                          application on the antecubital fossa. The
                          thresholds determined for propyl gallate (w/v
                          in 25:75 ethanol:water) were: (a) 0.0025% for
                          the upper arm occluded patch; (b) 0.0035% for
                          the underarm without shaving; (c) 0.005% for
                          the underarm with shaving; (d) 0.015% for the
                          antecubital fossa. Occluded patch
                          responsiveness to propyl gallate was
                          monitored and remained unchanged throughout a
                          2-year period. These data are useful in
                          understanding the relationship between
                          occlusive allergic contact dermatitis patch
                          testing and clinical contact dermatitis.